Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Facilities planned that would repair old nukes designed to build new ones

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 06:15 PM
Original message
Facilities planned that would repair old nukes designed to build new ones
http://www.headwatersnews.org/HCN.carlsbadnukes.html

"The U.S. Department of Energy, wants to manufacture sphere-like “pits” of plutonium in facilities that were promoted as refurbishment centers for existing nuclear weapon stocks — as many as 450 a year — for use in thermonuclear bunker-busting weapons. The pits, also known as “triggers,” are essentially fission bombs: Each pit serves as a trigger for a nuclear warhead, setting off an even more devastating fusion reaction."

Promoters of these facilities, like Energy Sec.Spencer Abraham, even claimed that the facilities could one day be used for the dismantlement of nukes. But the reality is that the administration has planned all along to use the facilities for the production of the next-generation of 'tactical' nuclear weapons; mini-nukes. As if we need a 'usable nuke'.

"New Mexico plans to produce 10 to 20 pits per year beginning in 2007 — a project with an estimated start-up cost of at least $1.5 billion — pit-facility supporters want even more. Nuclear analysts at the Natural Resources Defense Council estimate that the nation has more than 10,000 intact warheads, 5,000 pits in “strategic reserve,” and another 7,000 pits left over from dismantled warheads. What’s more, plutonium pits remain functional for at least 45 years, and possibly much longer."

"Radiation-exposure analyses estimated that the average worker in a 450 pit-per-year facility would be at risk of one fatal cancer every 4,900 years (though one opponent pointed out that, according to the Energy Department’s own statistics, a 1,000-worker facility would suffer about one fatal cancer every five years)."

Congress hasn't completely signed off on the projects and even slashed the administration's requests for the plants and for research on the bunker-busters as well, in July. I can't remember anyone approving tactical nukes. How are they moving forward without direct authorization? I'm not naive, I just don't have enough info.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC